So, no.
You can stop reading now, if that’s enough information to satisfy your curiosity. There is, however, a little more to it.
These authors describe a prospective evaluation of 114 Emergency Department patients with either suspected or confirmed acute pulmonary embolism. Patients were enrolled by convenience selection during the hours research assistants were in the ED. Each enrolled patient underwent a 3-minute walk test while research assistants measured changes in heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation.
In short, ambulation induced significant changes in heart rate and oxygen saturation between those who did, and did not, have pulmonary embolism. A change in heart rate of 10 bpm gave a sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 83 to 99%) and specificity of 31% (95% CI 22-42%), while a drop in O2 saturation of 2% gave a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI 63 to 91%) and specificity of 39% (95% CI 30 to 50%). Obviously, these test characteristics are poor – excepting, perhaps, a potentially useful negative likelihood ratio, particularly when both variables are utilized. However, there are also serious issues with their gold-standard for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism – with nearly 30% of their cohort undergoing ventilation/perfusion scans.
I appreciate these authors’ attempt to describe the test characteristics of, essentially, a free, non-invasive physiologic stress – and, even if the current data does not support routine use, it’s probably worth continuing to explore.
“Ambulatory vital signs in the workup of pulmonary embolism using a standardized 3-minute walk test”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26034913